Often the difference is the size of the organization associated with a theory and the interest one has in accepting or rejecting it and not it being non-pet = true
But more often, the difference is in the amount and quality of the data behind the model in question.
How many papers do these "dissenters" have, again?
the label 'stupid'
Is not being applied here. I didn't call anti-vaccers stupid (some are simply misinformed, after all).
You asked ceebs why he thought erected a straw man that all vaccine scaremongers are evil. I replied that they do not have to be uniformly evil (although some of them undoubtedly are). Being stupid is sufficient.
the issue was and is: how can one determine what's true and what's not
I have scientific papers. You have Andrew Wakefield and Rudolf Steiner. I'd say that's as good an indication of what's true as any you're likely to get.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Even allowing for the fetishisation of the scientific paper process - which is hardly infallible - big pharma has a long history of distorting it for profit.
Fortunately, when all the anti-vaxers have is a bought and paid for "study" by Wakefield and a couple of conspiracy theories, you don't need a serious index to debunk it.
If you want to discuss the many and varied faults and crimes of Big Pharma, then I'm also game. But then I'd suggest that you look at the failure to do anything serious in the way of malaria research, the absolutely criminal crusade against generic drugs in developing countries, or the aggressive way over-the-counter drugs (and even a few prescription drugs) are being marketed as lifestyle accessories.
Vaccines are a no-show in that game: Low markup, comparatively low volume, adequate R&D, relatively unaggressively advertised and fairly widely available outside the first world.
